Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Michal Piotrowski]

Hi all,

Here is a list of some known regressions in 2.6.22-rc2.

Feel free to add new regressions/remove fixed etc.
http://kernelnewbies.org/known_regressions



Memory management

Subject    : kernel BUG at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8476
Submitter  : Cherwin R. Nooitmeer <cherwin@gmail.com>
Status     : Unknown



PCMCIA

Subject    : libata and legacy ide pcmcia failure
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/17/305
Submitter  : Robert de Rooy <robert.de.rooy@gmail.com>
Status     : Unknown



Sparc64

Subject    : 2.6.22-rc broke X on Ultra5
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/22/78
Submitter  : Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@it.uu.se>
Status     : Unknown



Suspend

Subject    : STD fails with pci_device_suspend(): usb_hcd_pci_suspend+0x0/0x160 [usbcore]() returns -16
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/19/66
Submitter  : Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@mail.ru>
Status     : Unknown

Subject    : 2.6.22-rc1 suspend to RAM problem
References : http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/5819
Submitter  : Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>
Handled-By : Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
             Kristian Høgsberg <krh@bitplanet.net>
Status     : caused by fw-ohci module



Regards,
Michal

-- 
"Najbardziej brakowało mi twojego milczenia."
-- Andrzej Sapkowski "Coś więcej"

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Michal Piotrowski]

Hi all,

Here is a list of some known regressions in 2.6.22-rc2.

Feel free to add new regressions/remove fixed etc.
http://kernelnewbies.org/known_regressions



Memory management

Subject    : kernel BUG at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id„76
Submitter  : Cherwin R. Nooitmeer <cherwin@gmail.com>
Status     : Unknown



PCMCIA

Subject    : libata and legacy ide pcmcia failure
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/17/305
Submitter  : Robert de Rooy <robert.de.rooy@gmail.com>
Status     : Unknown



Sparc64

Subject    : 2.6.22-rc broke X on Ultra5
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/22/78
Submitter  : Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@it.uu.se>
Status     : Unknown



Suspend

Subject    : STD fails with pci_device_suspend(): usb_hcd_pci_suspend+0x0/0x160 [usbcore]() returns -16
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/19/66
Submitter  : Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@mail.ru>
Status     : Unknown

Subject    : 2.6.22-rc1 suspend to RAM problem
References : http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/5819
Submitter  : Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>
Handled-By : Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
             Kristian Høgsberg <krh@bitplanet.net>
Status     : caused by fw-ohci module



Regards,
Michal

-- 
"Najbardziej brakowało mi twojego milczenia."
-- Andrzej Sapkowski "Coś więcej"

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Michal Piotrowski]

Hi all,

Here is a list of some known regressions in 2.6.22-rc2.

Feel free to add new regressions/remove fixed etc.
http://kernelnewbies.org/known_regressions



Memory management

Subject    : kernel BUG at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8476
Submitter  : Cherwin R. Nooitmeer <cherwin@gmail.com>
Status     : Unknown



PCMCIA

Subject    : libata and legacy ide pcmcia failure
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/17/305
Submitter  : Robert de Rooy <robert.de.rooy@gmail.com>
Status     : Unknown



Sparc64

Subject    : 2.6.22-rc broke X on Ultra5
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/22/78
Submitter  : Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@it.uu.se>
Status     : Unknown



Suspend

Subject    : STD fails with pci_device_suspend(): usb_hcd_pci_suspend+0x0/0x160 [usbcore]() returns -16
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/19/66
Submitter  : Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@mail.ru>
Status     : Unknown

Subject    : 2.6.22-rc1 suspend to RAM problem
References : http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/5819
Submitter  : Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>
Handled-By : Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
             Kristian Høgsberg <krh@bitplanet.net>
Status     : caused by fw-ohci module



Regards,
Michal

-- 
"Najbardziej brakowało mi twojego milczenia."
-- Andrzej Sapkowski "Coś więcej"

Re: Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Alan Stern]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:

> Suspend
> 
> Subject    : STD fails with pci_device_suspend(): usb_hcd_pci_suspend+0x0/0x160 [usbcore]() returns -16
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/19/66
> Submitter  : Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@mail.ru>
> Status     : Unknown

This has been fixed and the patches are in the current -git.

Alan Stern

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Alan Stern]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:

> Suspend
> 
> Subject    : STD fails with pci_device_suspend(): usb_hcd_pci_suspend+0x0/0x160 [usbcore]() returns -16
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/19/66
> Submitter  : Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@mail.ru>
> Status     : Unknown

This has been fixed and the patches are in the current -git.

Alan Stern

Re: Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Michal Piotrowski]

Hi Alan,

On 24/05/07, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>
> > Suspend
> >
> > Subject    : STD fails with pci_device_suspend(): usb_hcd_pci_suspend+0x0/0x160 [usbcore]() returns -16
> > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/19/66
> > Submitter  : Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@mail.ru>
> > Status     : Unknown
>
> This has been fixed and the patches are in the current -git.

Thanks for the information.

>
> Alan Stern
>
>

Regards,
Michal

-- 
"Najbardziej brakowało mi twojego milczenia."
-- Andrzej Sapkowski "Coś więcej"

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Christoph Lameter]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:

> Memory management
> 
> Subject    : kernel BUG at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
> References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id„76
> Submitter  : Cherwin R. Nooitmeer <cherwin@gmail.com>
> Status     : Unknown


Looks like this is in DRM code:

BUG: at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
 [<c014f67f>] get_slab+0x43/0x1c6
 [<c014f875>] __kmalloc+0xc/0x57
 [<f0a7b564>] drm_rmdraw+0x0/0x27d [drm]
 [<f0a7b698>] drm_rmdraw+0x134/0x27d [drm]
 [<f0a7b564>] drm_rmdraw+0x0/0x27d [drm]
 [<f0a7c1d0>] drm_ioctl+0x144/0x18c [drm]
 [<c01265ad>] enqueue_hrtimer+0xe3/0xef
 [<c015c184>] do_ioctl+0x4c/0x64
 [<c015c3c7>] vfs_ioctl+0x22b/0x23e
 [<c015c40d>] sys_ioctl+0x33/0x4e
 [<c0103ca0>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Christoph Lameter]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:

> Memory management
> 
> Subject    : kernel BUG at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
> References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8476
> Submitter  : Cherwin R. Nooitmeer <cherwin@gmail.com>
> Status     : Unknown


Looks like this is in DRM code:

BUG: at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
 [<c014f67f>] get_slab+0x43/0x1c6
 [<c014f875>] __kmalloc+0xc/0x57
 [<f0a7b564>] drm_rmdraw+0x0/0x27d [drm]
 [<f0a7b698>] drm_rmdraw+0x134/0x27d [drm]
 [<f0a7b564>] drm_rmdraw+0x0/0x27d [drm]
 [<f0a7c1d0>] drm_ioctl+0x144/0x18c [drm]
 [<c01265ad>] enqueue_hrtimer+0xe3/0xef
 [<c015c184>] do_ioctl+0x4c/0x64
 [<c015c3c7>] vfs_ioctl+0x22b/0x23e
 [<c015c40d>] sys_ioctl+0x33/0x4e
 [<c0103ca0>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 May 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> 
> > Memory management
> > 
> > Subject    : kernel BUG at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
> > References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8476
> > Submitter  : Cherwin R. Nooitmeer <cherwin@gmail.com>
> > Status     : Unknown
> 
> 
> Looks like this is in DRM code:
> 
> BUG: at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()

I'm going to change that "BUG:" to "WARNING:". 

I know some people disagreed with it (ie Ingo), but I think that's total 
and utter bullshit.

It's a warning. Right now that "BUG:" message makes people all scared 
about something that is not fatal at all, just a note that something 
hasn't been converted, but is expected to work absolutely fine.

Calling it a bug is idiotic.

			Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 May 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> 
> > Memory management
> > 
> > Subject    : kernel BUG at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
> > References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8476
> > Submitter  : Cherwin R. Nooitmeer <cherwin@gmail.com>
> > Status     : Unknown
> 
> 
> Looks like this is in DRM code:
> 
> BUG: at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()

I'm going to change that "BUG:" to "WARNING:". 

I know some people disagreed with it (ie Ingo), but I think that's total 
and utter bullshit.

It's a warning. Right now that "BUG:" message makes people all scared 
about something that is not fatal at all, just a note that something 
hasn't been converted, but is expected to work absolutely fine.

Calling it a bug is idiotic.

			Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 May 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> 
> > Memory management
> > 
> > Subject    : kernel BUG at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
> > References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id„76
> > Submitter  : Cherwin R. Nooitmeer <cherwin@gmail.com>
> > Status     : Unknown
> 
> 
> Looks like this is in DRM code:
> 
> BUG: at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()

I'm going to change that "BUG:" to "WARNING:". 

I know some people disagreed with it (ie Ingo), but I think that's total 
and utter bullshit.

It's a warning. Right now that "BUG:" message makes people all scared 
about something that is not fatal at all, just a note that something 
hasn't been converted, but is expected to work absolutely fine.

Calling it a bug is idiotic.

			Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Christoph Lameter]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> I'm going to change that "BUG:" to "WARNING:". 

Good. I wondered for a long time why a "WARN_xxx ... " does print BUG: 
xxx.

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Christoph Lameter]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> I'm going to change that "BUG:" to "WARNING:". 

Good. I wondered for a long time why a "WARN_xxx ... " does print BUG: 
xxx.

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Christoph Lameter]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> I'm going to change that "BUG:" to "WARNING:". 

Good. I wondered for a long time why a "WARN_xxx ... " does print BUG: 
xxx.

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > BUG: at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
> 
> I'm going to change that "BUG:" to "WARNING:". 

I think we should remove these kmalloc(0, ...) warnings prior to
the 2.6.22 release, put them back afterwards.

Actually it would be useful to have some config variable which is "false"
for production kernels (2.6.x, 2.6.x.y) and "true" for development kernels
(2.6.x-rcN).  I suspect we'd end up using this in quite a lot of places for
general developer-nags which shouldn't be exposed to users of production
kernels.

The problem with this is that on the day Linus goes from 2.6.x-rc7 to 2.6.x
we suddenly get a compile-time kernel which nobody has tested, so we'd need
to set CONFIG_DEVELOPMENT_KERNEL to false around the -rc4/5 timeframe.

I'm not sure how we could do this, apart from patching and unpatching a
config file each time.

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > BUG: at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
> 
> I'm going to change that "BUG:" to "WARNING:". 

I think we should remove these kmalloc(0, ...) warnings prior to
the 2.6.22 release, put them back afterwards.

Actually it would be useful to have some config variable which is "false"
for production kernels (2.6.x, 2.6.x.y) and "true" for development kernels
(2.6.x-rcN).  I suspect we'd end up using this in quite a lot of places for
general developer-nags which shouldn't be exposed to users of production
kernels.

The problem with this is that on the day Linus goes from 2.6.x-rc7 to 2.6.x
we suddenly get a compile-time kernel which nobody has tested, so we'd need
to set CONFIG_DEVELOPMENT_KERNEL to false around the -rc4/5 timeframe.

I'm not sure how we could do this, apart from patching and unpatching a
config file each time.

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > BUG: at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
> 
> I'm going to change that "BUG:" to "WARNING:". 

I think we should remove these kmalloc(0, ...) warnings prior to
the 2.6.22 release, put them back afterwards.

Actually it would be useful to have some config variable which is "false"
for production kernels (2.6.x, 2.6.x.y) and "true" for development kernels
(2.6.x-rcN).  I suspect we'd end up using this in quite a lot of places for
general developer-nags which shouldn't be exposed to users of production
kernels.

The problem with this is that on the day Linus goes from 2.6.x-rc7 to 2.6.x
we suddenly get a compile-time kernel which nobody has tested, so we'd need
to set CONFIG_DEVELOPMENT_KERNEL to false around the -rc4/5 timeframe.

I'm not sure how we could do this, apart from patching and unpatching a
config file each time.

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > > BUG: at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
> > 
> > I'm going to change that "BUG:" to "WARNING:". 
> 
> I think we should remove these kmalloc(0, ...) warnings prior to
> the 2.6.22 release, put them back afterwards.

Orthogonal issue, but yes, I agree. I'll do that too, but let's keep it 
for now.

> I'm not sure how we could do this, apart from patching and unpatching a
> config file each time.

Doing it in the Makefile would make more sense, since I have to edit that 
file anyway to change -rc5 to -rc6.

		Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > > BUG: at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
> > 
> > I'm going to change that "BUG:" to "WARNING:". 
> 
> I think we should remove these kmalloc(0, ...) warnings prior to
> the 2.6.22 release, put them back afterwards.

Orthogonal issue, but yes, I agree. I'll do that too, but let's keep it 
for now.

> I'm not sure how we could do this, apart from patching and unpatching a
> config file each time.

Doing it in the Makefile would make more sense, since I have to edit that 
file anyway to change -rc5 to -rc6.

		Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Jeff Garzik]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Doing it in the Makefile would make more sense, since I have to edit that 
> file anyway to change -rc5 to -rc6.


Tangent:  you should also change NAME when you do so :)

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Jeff Garzik]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Doing it in the Makefile would make more sense, since I have to edit that 
> file anyway to change -rc5 to -rc6.


Tangent:  you should also change NAME when you do so :)

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Jeff Garzik]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Doing it in the Makefile would make more sense, since I have to edit that 
> file anyway to change -rc5 to -rc6.


Tangent:  you should also change NAME when you do so :)

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > > BUG: at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
> > 
> > I'm going to change that "BUG:" to "WARNING:". 
> 
> I think we should remove these kmalloc(0, ...) warnings prior to
> the 2.6.22 release, put them back afterwards.

Orthogonal issue, but yes, I agree. I'll do that too, but let's keep it 
for now.

> I'm not sure how we could do this, apart from patching and unpatching a
> config file each time.

Doing it in the Makefile would make more sense, since I have to edit that 
file anyway to change -rc5 to -rc6.

		Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Ingo Molnar]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > Looks like this is in DRM code:
> > 
> > BUG: at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
> 
> I'm going to change that "BUG:" to "WARNING:".
> 
> I know some people disagreed with it (ie Ingo), but I think that's 
> total and utter bullshit.
> 
> It's a warning. Right now that "BUG:" message makes people all scared 
> about something that is not fatal at all, just a note that something 
> hasn't been converted, but is expected to work absolutely fine.
> 
> Calling it a bug is idiotic.

i very much agree that this kmalloc_index() one shouldnt be called a 
"BUG: ", but if you look at the majority of WARN_ON() instances they are 
checks for clear, serious kernel bugs. Very often we use WARN_ON() not 
to signal that it's just a harmless warning, but because we do not want 
to bring the system down via a BUG_ON(). The API is misnamed for sure, 
but still, the purpose and current practice is clear: to signal kernel 
bugs.

To quantify this a bit more objectively i just did a "grep WARN_ON 
kernel/*.c" and randomly picked 10 out of the 113 WARN_ON()'s:

 kernel/cpu.c:			WARN_ON(1);
 kernel/exit.c:	WARN_ON(atomic_read(&tsk->fs_excl));
 kernel/fork.c:	WARN_ON(!(tsk->exit_state & (EXIT_DEAD | EXIT_ZOMBIE)));
 kernel/futex.c:	WARN_ON(!pi_state);
 kernel/hrtimer.c:		WARN_ON_ONCE(timer->cb_mode =  HRTIMER_CB_IRQSAFE_NO_SOFTIRQ);
 kernel/lockdep.c:		WARN_ON(1);
 kernel/mutex-debug.c:	DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(list_empty(&waiter->list));
 kernel/rtmutex.c:	WARN_ON(rt_mutex_is_locked(lock));
 kernel/sched.c:	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON((preempt_count() < 0)))
 kernel/softirq.c:       WARN_ON_ONCE(in_irq());

and reviewed each instance, each and every one of these warnings is a 
serious kernel bug that i would not 'warn' about, but what i'd like to 
see reported ASAP. [ In fact i added 5 of these WARN_ON()s :-/ ] But 
maybe that's just me?

now regarding the naming of this API, i'd very much agree to do this 
rename:

   WARN_ON  =>  BUG_ON
   BUG_ON   =>  CRASH_ON

and make WARN_ON() print a "WARNING: ".

and i signalled this in the original discussion too a few months ago 
when i opposed the watering-down of the WARN_ON printk.

OTOH i dont feel that strongly about all this :-)

	Ingo

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Ingo Molnar]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > Looks like this is in DRM code:
> > 
> > BUG: at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
> 
> I'm going to change that "BUG:" to "WARNING:".
> 
> I know some people disagreed with it (ie Ingo), but I think that's 
> total and utter bullshit.
> 
> It's a warning. Right now that "BUG:" message makes people all scared 
> about something that is not fatal at all, just a note that something 
> hasn't been converted, but is expected to work absolutely fine.
> 
> Calling it a bug is idiotic.

i very much agree that this kmalloc_index() one shouldnt be called a 
"BUG: ", but if you look at the majority of WARN_ON() instances they are 
checks for clear, serious kernel bugs. Very often we use WARN_ON() not 
to signal that it's just a harmless warning, but because we do not want 
to bring the system down via a BUG_ON(). The API is misnamed for sure, 
but still, the purpose and current practice is clear: to signal kernel 
bugs.

To quantify this a bit more objectively i just did a "grep WARN_ON 
kernel/*.c" and randomly picked 10 out of the 113 WARN_ON()'s:

 kernel/cpu.c:			WARN_ON(1);
 kernel/exit.c:	WARN_ON(atomic_read(&tsk->fs_excl));
 kernel/fork.c:	WARN_ON(!(tsk->exit_state & (EXIT_DEAD | EXIT_ZOMBIE)));
 kernel/futex.c:	WARN_ON(!pi_state);
 kernel/hrtimer.c:		WARN_ON_ONCE(timer->cb_mode ==  HRTIMER_CB_IRQSAFE_NO_SOFTIRQ);
 kernel/lockdep.c:		WARN_ON(1);
 kernel/mutex-debug.c:	DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(list_empty(&waiter->list));
 kernel/rtmutex.c:	WARN_ON(rt_mutex_is_locked(lock));
 kernel/sched.c:	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON((preempt_count() < 0)))
 kernel/softirq.c:       WARN_ON_ONCE(in_irq());

and reviewed each instance, each and every one of these warnings is a 
serious kernel bug that i would not 'warn' about, but what i'd like to 
see reported ASAP. [ In fact i added 5 of these WARN_ON()s :-/ ] But 
maybe that's just me?

now regarding the naming of this API, i'd very much agree to do this 
rename:

   WARN_ON  =>  BUG_ON
   BUG_ON   =>  CRASH_ON

and make WARN_ON() print a "WARNING: ".

and i signalled this in the original discussion too a few months ago 
when i opposed the watering-down of the WARN_ON printk.

OTOH i dont feel that strongly about all this :-)

	Ingo

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> i very much agree that this kmalloc_index() one shouldnt be called a 
> "BUG: ", but if you look at the majority of WARN_ON() instances they are 
> checks for clear, serious kernel bugs.

I _still_ disagree.

There's a huge difference between "You killed my father, prepare to die", 
and "Btw, I didn't like that, but I'll just continue".

And that's the difference between BUG_ON() and WARN_ON().

And dammit, the kernel message should make that CLEAR. It's totally 
idiotic to call both "BUG". One is a clear BUG, the other is a "uhhuh, 
something unexpected happened, but I know how to continue".

So stop this idiotic "we should call them both the same". If they actually 
were the same, they'd both be called BUG_ON().

		Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> i very much agree that this kmalloc_index() one shouldnt be called a 
> "BUG: ", but if you look at the majority of WARN_ON() instances they are 
> checks for clear, serious kernel bugs.

I _still_ disagree.

There's a huge difference between "You killed my father, prepare to die", 
and "Btw, I didn't like that, but I'll just continue".

And that's the difference between BUG_ON() and WARN_ON().

And dammit, the kernel message should make that CLEAR. It's totally 
idiotic to call both "BUG". One is a clear BUG, the other is a "uhhuh, 
something unexpected happened, but I know how to continue".

So stop this idiotic "we should call them both the same". If they actually 
were the same, they'd both be called BUG_ON().

		Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> i very much agree that this kmalloc_index() one shouldnt be called a 
> "BUG: ", but if you look at the majority of WARN_ON() instances they are 
> checks for clear, serious kernel bugs.

I _still_ disagree.

There's a huge difference between "You killed my father, prepare to die", 
and "Btw, I didn't like that, but I'll just continue".

And that's the difference between BUG_ON() and WARN_ON().

And dammit, the kernel message should make that CLEAR. It's totally 
idiotic to call both "BUG". One is a clear BUG, the other is a "uhhuh, 
something unexpected happened, but I know how to continue".

So stop this idiotic "we should call them both the same". If they actually 
were the same, they'd both be called BUG_ON().

		Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 12:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> There's a huge difference between "You killed my father, prepare to
> die", and "Btw, I didn't like that, but I'll just continue".

There are three cases, not two:

1. Something slightly suboptimal happened. We didn't like it.
2. Something very broken happened but we can recover so there's no
   need to actually commit Harikiri right now.
3. Oh fuck.

We are currently using WARN_ON() for both of the first two; I think Ingo
is merely suggesting that we start to differentiate between them. Which
makes a certain amount of sense.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 12:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> There's a huge difference between "You killed my father, prepare to
> die", and "Btw, I didn't like that, but I'll just continue".

There are three cases, not two:

1. Something slightly suboptimal happened. We didn't like it.
2. Something very broken happened but we can recover so there's no
   need to actually commit Harikiri right now.
3. Oh fuck.

We are currently using WARN_ON() for both of the first two; I think Ingo
is merely suggesting that we start to differentiate between them. Which
makes a certain amount of sense.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 12:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> There's a huge difference between "You killed my father, prepare to
> die", and "Btw, I didn't like that, but I'll just continue".

There are three cases, not two:

1. Something slightly suboptimal happened. We didn't like it.
2. Something very broken happened but we can recover so there's no
   need to actually commit Harikiri right now.
3. Oh fuck.

We are currently using WARN_ON() for both of the first two; I think Ingo
is merely suggesting that we start to differentiate between them. Which
makes a certain amount of sense.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Ingo Molnar]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > i very much agree that this kmalloc_index() one shouldnt be called a 
> > "BUG: ", but if you look at the majority of WARN_ON() instances they 
> > are checks for clear, serious kernel bugs.
> 
> I _still_ disagree.
> 
> There's a huge difference between "You killed my father, prepare to 
> die", and "Btw, I didn't like that, but I'll just continue".

yeah ...

> And that's the difference between BUG_ON() and WARN_ON().

how about this solution: make WARN_ON() a "WARNING: " like you suggested 
(i still agree with that in principle), but also solve the additional 
problem i'm trying to outline: make BUG_ON() _not_ crash the box [only 
if the user asks for a crash to happen in such circumstances - this can 
be a sysctl.]. Then i can change the majority of the current WARN_ON()s 
to BUG_ON()s.

Most of the WARN_ON()s i personally add (and most of the WARN_ON()s i 
see others adding) are not WARN_ON()s because "i didnt like that and 
i'll just continue", they are WARN_ON() because i want _actual feedback 
from users_.

A BUG_ON() has a (much) lower likelyhood of being reported back - for 
most users it is a "X just hung hard, there was nothing in the syslog, i 
had to switch back to the older kernel" experience, and they do not have 
a serial console to hook up (newer hardware often doesnt even have a 
serial port). With the WARN_ON()s we have a _chance_ that despite the 
seriousness of the bug, the message makes it to the syslog, until the 
system comes to a screeching halt due to side-effects of the bug.

in that sense i am part of the problem: i was adding WARN_ON()s that 
werent true 'warnings' but 'bugs'. So i'd very much like to fix that 
problem, but i'd also like to solve the (very serious and existing) 
problem of BUG_ON()s making it less likely to get bugs reported back. 

	Ingo

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Ingo Molnar]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > i very much agree that this kmalloc_index() one shouldnt be called a 
> > "BUG: ", but if you look at the majority of WARN_ON() instances they 
> > are checks for clear, serious kernel bugs.
> 
> I _still_ disagree.
> 
> There's a huge difference between "You killed my father, prepare to 
> die", and "Btw, I didn't like that, but I'll just continue".

yeah ...

> And that's the difference between BUG_ON() and WARN_ON().

how about this solution: make WARN_ON() a "WARNING: " like you suggested 
(i still agree with that in principle), but also solve the additional 
problem i'm trying to outline: make BUG_ON() _not_ crash the box [only 
if the user asks for a crash to happen in such circumstances - this can 
be a sysctl.]. Then i can change the majority of the current WARN_ON()s 
to BUG_ON()s.

Most of the WARN_ON()s i personally add (and most of the WARN_ON()s i 
see others adding) are not WARN_ON()s because "i didnt like that and 
i'll just continue", they are WARN_ON() because i want _actual feedback 
from users_.

A BUG_ON() has a (much) lower likelyhood of being reported back - for 
most users it is a "X just hung hard, there was nothing in the syslog, i 
had to switch back to the older kernel" experience, and they do not have 
a serial console to hook up (newer hardware often doesnt even have a 
serial port). With the WARN_ON()s we have a _chance_ that despite the 
seriousness of the bug, the message makes it to the syslog, until the 
system comes to a screeching halt due to side-effects of the bug.

in that sense i am part of the problem: i was adding WARN_ON()s that 
werent true 'warnings' but 'bugs'. So i'd very much like to fix that 
problem, but i'd also like to solve the (very serious and existing) 
problem of BUG_ON()s making it less likely to get bugs reported back. 

	Ingo

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Stefan Richter]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i was adding WARN_ON()s that werent true 'warnings' but 'bugs'.

IME, the trace dump in the kernel log looks scary enough to be
eventually reported, even if prefixed with "WARNING:".
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= ==--=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Stefan Richter]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i was adding WARN_ON()s that werent true 'warnings' but 'bugs'.

IME, the trace dump in the kernel log looks scary enough to be
eventually reported, even if prefixed with "WARNING:".
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= ==--=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Stefan Richter]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i was adding WARN_ON()s that werent true 'warnings' but 'bugs'.

IME, the trace dump in the kernel log looks scary enough to be
eventually reported, even if prefixed with "WARNING:".
-- 
Stefan Richter
-===-=-== -=-= =--http://arcgraph.de/sr/

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > i was adding WARN_ON()s that werent true 'warnings' but 'bugs'.
> 
> IME, the trace dump in the kernel log looks scary enough to be
> eventually reported, even if prefixed with "WARNING:".

Oh, absolutely. It will stand out like a sore thumb. In fact, I think 
WARNING: stands out more than BUG:, if only because it's longer!

		Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > i was adding WARN_ON()s that werent true 'warnings' but 'bugs'.
> 
> IME, the trace dump in the kernel log looks scary enough to be
> eventually reported, even if prefixed with "WARNING:".

Oh, absolutely. It will stand out like a sore thumb. In fact, I think 
WARNING: stands out more than BUG:, if only because it's longer!

		Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > i was adding WARN_ON()s that werent true 'warnings' but 'bugs'.
> 
> IME, the trace dump in the kernel log looks scary enough to be
> eventually reported, even if prefixed with "WARNING:".

Oh, absolutely. It will stand out like a sore thumb. In fact, I think 
WARNING: stands out more than BUG:, if only because it's longer!

		Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Chris Newport]

Ingo Molnar wrote:

>A BUG_ON() has a (much) lower likelyhood of being reported back - for 
>most users it is a "X just hung hard, there was nothing in the syslog, i 
>had to switch back to the older kernel" experience, and they do not have 
>a serial console to hook up (newer hardware often doesnt even have a 
>serial port). With the WARN_ON()s we have a _chance_ that despite the 
>seriousness of the bug, the message makes it to the syslog, until the 
>system comes to a screeching halt due to side-effects of the bug.
>
>in that sense i am part of the problem: i was adding WARN_ON()s that 
>werent true 'warnings' but 'bugs'. So i'd very much like to fix that 
>problem, but i'd also like to solve the (very serious and existing) 
>problem of BUG_ON()s making it less likely to get bugs reported back. 
>
>  
>
There is a fundamental problem in getting  a decent log to debug  a 
crashed kernel.  Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris.
If the kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag.
At the next boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where
it is preserved for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be
larger than core, but this is usually the case.

On Sun machines this is fairly easy because the dump can be
performed by the OBP, on other architectures it may be more
difficult to still have enough working kernel to achieve the dump
after a kernel panic.

Just a thought .......

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Chris Newport]

Ingo Molnar wrote:

>A BUG_ON() has a (much) lower likelyhood of being reported back - for 
>most users it is a "X just hung hard, there was nothing in the syslog, i 
>had to switch back to the older kernel" experience, and they do not have 
>a serial console to hook up (newer hardware often doesnt even have a 
>serial port). With the WARN_ON()s we have a _chance_ that despite the 
>seriousness of the bug, the message makes it to the syslog, until the 
>system comes to a screeching halt due to side-effects of the bug.
>
>in that sense i am part of the problem: i was adding WARN_ON()s that 
>werent true 'warnings' but 'bugs'. So i'd very much like to fix that 
>problem, but i'd also like to solve the (very serious and existing) 
>problem of BUG_ON()s making it less likely to get bugs reported back. 
>
>  
>
There is a fundamental problem in getting  a decent log to debug  a 
crashed kernel.  Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris.
If the kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag.
At the next boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where
it is preserved for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be
larger than core, but this is usually the case.

On Sun machines this is fairly easy because the dump can be
performed by the OBP, on other architectures it may be more
difficult to still have enough working kernel to achieve the dump
after a kernel panic.

Just a thought .......

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Chris Newport]

Ingo Molnar wrote:

>A BUG_ON() has a (much) lower likelyhood of being reported back - for 
>most users it is a "X just hung hard, there was nothing in the syslog, i 
>had to switch back to the older kernel" experience, and they do not have 
>a serial console to hook up (newer hardware often doesnt even have a 
>serial port). With the WARN_ON()s we have a _chance_ that despite the 
>seriousness of the bug, the message makes it to the syslog, until the 
>system comes to a screeching halt due to side-effects of the bug.
>
>in that sense i am part of the problem: i was adding WARN_ON()s that 
>werent true 'warnings' but 'bugs'. So i'd very much like to fix that 
>problem, but i'd also like to solve the (very serious and existing) 
>problem of BUG_ON()s making it less likely to get bugs reported back. 
>
>  
>
There is a fundamental problem in getting  a decent log to debug  a 
crashed kernel.  Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris.
If the kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag.
At the next boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where
it is preserved for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be
larger than core, but this is usually the case.

On Sun machines this is fairly easy because the dump can be
performed by the OBP, on other architectures it may be more
difficult to still have enough working kernel to achieve the dump
after a kernel panic.

Just a thought .......

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Ingo Molnar]

* Chris Newport <crn@netunix.com> wrote:

> There is a fundamental problem in getting a decent log to debug a 
> crashed kernel.  Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris. If the 
> kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag. At the next 
> boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where it is preserved 
> for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be larger than core, but 
> this is usually the case.

we've got kdump, but it's not usually enabled by default by distros.

	Ingo

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Ingo Molnar]

* Chris Newport <crn@netunix.com> wrote:

> There is a fundamental problem in getting a decent log to debug a 
> crashed kernel.  Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris. If the 
> kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag. At the next 
> boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where it is preserved 
> for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be larger than core, but 
> this is usually the case.

we've got kdump, but it's not usually enabled by default by distros.

	Ingo

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 14:34:56 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> * Chris Newport <crn@netunix.com> wrote:
> 
> > There is a fundamental problem in getting a decent log to debug a 
> > crashed kernel.  Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris. If the 
> > kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag. At the next 
> > boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where it is preserved 
> > for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be larger than core, but 
> > this is usually the case.
> 
> we've got kdump, but it's not usually enabled by default by distros.

Isn't that awful?

By now we should be in the situation where if a tester is hitting a
kernel crash we can say to them "please turn on crashdumps and send me
the image".  But we're not - kernel developers don't know how to turn the
thing on in $RANDOM_DISTRO, testers have no experience with the feature
and kernel developers don't have experience handling the crash images.

And I'm not sure that the (required) "don't dump user memory and pagecache"
feature has been implemented yet?

It'd be in our interests to push all this along a bit.

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 14:34:56 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> * Chris Newport <crn@netunix.com> wrote:
> 
> > There is a fundamental problem in getting a decent log to debug a 
> > crashed kernel.  Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris. If the 
> > kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag. At the next 
> > boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where it is preserved 
> > for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be larger than core, but 
> > this is usually the case.
> 
> we've got kdump, but it's not usually enabled by default by distros.

Isn't that awful?

By now we should be in the situation where if a tester is hitting a
kernel crash we can say to them "please turn on crashdumps and send me
the image".  But we're not - kernel developers don't know how to turn the
thing on in $RANDOM_DISTRO, testers have no experience with the feature
and kernel developers don't have experience handling the crash images.

And I'm not sure that the (required) "don't dump user memory and pagecache"
feature has been implemented yet?

It'd be in our interests to push all this along a bit.

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 14:34:56 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> * Chris Newport <crn@netunix.com> wrote:
> 
> > There is a fundamental problem in getting a decent log to debug a 
> > crashed kernel.  Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris. If the 
> > kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag. At the next 
> > boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where it is preserved 
> > for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be larger than core, but 
> > this is usually the case.
> 
> we've got kdump, but it's not usually enabled by default by distros.

Isn't that awful?

By now we should be in the situation where if a tester is hitting a
kernel crash we can say to them "please turn on crashdumps and send me
the image".  But we're not - kernel developers don't know how to turn the
thing on in $RANDOM_DISTRO, testers have no experience with the feature
and kernel developers don't have experience handling the crash images.

And I'm not sure that the (required) "don't dump user memory and pagecache"
feature has been implemented yet?

It'd be in our interests to push all this along a bit.

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Christoph Lameter]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

> the image".  But we're not - kernel developers don't know how to turn the
> thing on in $RANDOM_DISTRO, testers have no experience with the feature
> and kernel developers don't have experience handling the crash images.

Well, we for instance have problems with huge crash dumps. Its even a 
challenge if the machine has only a few gigabytes of main memory.
 
> And I'm not sure that the (required) "don't dump user memory and pagecache"
> feature has been implemented yet?

A colleague of mine is still working to get it to work just right on IA64.
He does it full time. sigh. Jay what is the status on that?

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Christoph Lameter]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

> the image".  But we're not - kernel developers don't know how to turn the
> thing on in $RANDOM_DISTRO, testers have no experience with the feature
> and kernel developers don't have experience handling the crash images.

Well, we for instance have problems with huge crash dumps. Its even a 
challenge if the machine has only a few gigabytes of main memory.
 
> And I'm not sure that the (required) "don't dump user memory and pagecache"
> feature has been implemented yet?

A colleague of mine is still working to get it to work just right on IA64.
He does it full time. sigh. Jay what is the status on that?

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Christoph Lameter]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

> the image".  But we're not - kernel developers don't know how to turn the
> thing on in $RANDOM_DISTRO, testers have no experience with the feature
> and kernel developers don't have experience handling the crash images.

Well, we for instance have problems with huge crash dumps. Its even a 
challenge if the machine has only a few gigabytes of main memory.
 
> And I'm not sure that the (required) "don't dump user memory and pagecache"
> feature has been implemented yet?

A colleague of mine is still working to get it to work just right on IA64.
He does it full time. sigh. Jay what is the status on that?

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Vivek Goyal]

On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 09:33:54AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 14:34:56 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> 
> > * Chris Newport <crn@netunix.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > There is a fundamental problem in getting a decent log to debug a 
> > > crashed kernel.  Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris. If the 
> > > kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag. At the next 
> > > boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where it is preserved 
> > > for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be larger than core, but 
> > > this is usually the case.
> > 
> > we've got kdump, but it's not usually enabled by default by distros.
> 
> Isn't that awful?
> 

I think kdump should be enabled by default. Or at least user should be
given an option to enable/configure this service at installation time.

Things are still good atleast in RHEL5. It gives user a option to
enable/disable kdump at firstboot after installation. A fall side of
doing it at firstboot time is that a user has to go for an extra reboot
if he chooses to enable kdump (Because of kernel command line crashkernel=).
An improvemnt could be that these options should be given at installation
time so that a user does not have to go through an extra reboot to enable
kdump service. 

It also has got graphical scripts to configure kdump serivce and enable it.
Other distributions are catching up but there seems to be a reluctance
to enable kdump by default primarily because of a chunk of memory being
reserved for kdump kernel which can not be used by regular kernel.

As of today RHEL reserves 128MB of memory for x86/x86_64 arch if kdump
is enabled. Some people are also reluctant to change the installer to
include a screen which can help user enable/disable/configure kdump. They
think it increases installer complexity and user is likely to get confused.

> By now we should be in the situation where if a tester is hitting a
> kernel crash we can say to them "please turn on crashdumps and send me
> the image".  But we're not - kernel developers don't know how to turn the
> thing on in $RANDOM_DISTRO, testers have no experience with the feature
> and kernel developers don't have experience handling the crash images.
> 
> And I'm not sure that the (required) "don't dump user memory and pagecache"
> feature has been implemented yet?
> 

Yes. It has been implemented and integrated with RHEL5. Not sure about others.
NEC developers have developed a user space filtering utility which can filter
out pagecache, user memory and zero pages.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/makedumpfile

In RHEL5, one can pre-configure filtering options and a filtered crash
dump will automatically be saved to user configured destination.
 
Thanks
Vivek

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Vivek Goyal]

On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 09:33:54AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 14:34:56 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> 
> > * Chris Newport <crn@netunix.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > There is a fundamental problem in getting a decent log to debug a 
> > > crashed kernel.  Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris. If the 
> > > kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag. At the next 
> > > boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where it is preserved 
> > > for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be larger than core, but 
> > > this is usually the case.
> > 
> > we've got kdump, but it's not usually enabled by default by distros.
> 
> Isn't that awful?
> 

I think kdump should be enabled by default. Or at least user should be
given an option to enable/configure this service at installation time.

Things are still good atleast in RHEL5. It gives user a option to
enable/disable kdump at firstboot after installation. A fall side of
doing it at firstboot time is that a user has to go for an extra reboot
if he chooses to enable kdump (Because of kernel command line crashkernel=).
An improvemnt could be that these options should be given at installation
time so that a user does not have to go through an extra reboot to enable
kdump service. 

It also has got graphical scripts to configure kdump serivce and enable it.
Other distributions are catching up but there seems to be a reluctance
to enable kdump by default primarily because of a chunk of memory being
reserved for kdump kernel which can not be used by regular kernel.

As of today RHEL reserves 128MB of memory for x86/x86_64 arch if kdump
is enabled. Some people are also reluctant to change the installer to
include a screen which can help user enable/disable/configure kdump. They
think it increases installer complexity and user is likely to get confused.

> By now we should be in the situation where if a tester is hitting a
> kernel crash we can say to them "please turn on crashdumps and send me
> the image".  But we're not - kernel developers don't know how to turn the
> thing on in $RANDOM_DISTRO, testers have no experience with the feature
> and kernel developers don't have experience handling the crash images.
> 
> And I'm not sure that the (required) "don't dump user memory and pagecache"
> feature has been implemented yet?
> 

Yes. It has been implemented and integrated with RHEL5. Not sure about others.
NEC developers have developed a user space filtering utility which can filter
out pagecache, user memory and zero pages.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/makedumpfile

In RHEL5, one can pre-configure filtering options and a filtered crash
dump will automatically be saved to user configured destination.
 
Thanks
Vivek

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Vivek Goyal]

On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 09:33:54AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 14:34:56 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> 
> > * Chris Newport <crn@netunix.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > There is a fundamental problem in getting a decent log to debug a 
> > > crashed kernel.  Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris. If the 
> > > kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag. At the next 
> > > boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where it is preserved 
> > > for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be larger than core, but 
> > > this is usually the case.
> > 
> > we've got kdump, but it's not usually enabled by default by distros.
> 
> Isn't that awful?
> 

I think kdump should be enabled by default. Or at least user should be
given an option to enable/configure this service at installation time.

Things are still good atleast in RHEL5. It gives user a option to
enable/disable kdump at firstboot after installation. A fall side of
doing it at firstboot time is that a user has to go for an extra reboot
if he chooses to enable kdump (Because of kernel command line crashkernel=).
An improvemnt could be that these options should be given at installation
time so that a user does not have to go through an extra reboot to enable
kdump service. 

It also has got graphical scripts to configure kdump serivce and enable it.
Other distributions are catching up but there seems to be a reluctance
to enable kdump by default primarily because of a chunk of memory being
reserved for kdump kernel which can not be used by regular kernel.

As of today RHEL reserves 128MB of memory for x86/x86_64 arch if kdump
is enabled. Some people are also reluctant to change the installer to
include a screen which can help user enable/disable/configure kdump. They
think it increases installer complexity and user is likely to get confused.

> By now we should be in the situation where if a tester is hitting a
> kernel crash we can say to them "please turn on crashdumps and send me
> the image".  But we're not - kernel developers don't know how to turn the
> thing on in $RANDOM_DISTRO, testers have no experience with the feature
> and kernel developers don't have experience handling the crash images.
> 
> And I'm not sure that the (required) "don't dump user memory and pagecache"
> feature has been implemented yet?
> 

Yes. It has been implemented and integrated with RHEL5. Not sure about others.
NEC developers have developed a user space filtering utility which can filter
out pagecache, user memory and zero pages.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/makedumpfile

In RHEL5, one can pre-configure filtering options and a filtered crash
dump will automatically be saved to user configured destination.
 
Thanks
Vivek

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Ingo Molnar]

* Chris Newport <crn@netunix.com> wrote:

> There is a fundamental problem in getting a decent log to debug a 
> crashed kernel.  Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris. If the 
> kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag. At the next 
> boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where it is preserved 
> for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be larger than core, but 
> this is usually the case.

we've got kdump, but it's not usually enabled by default by distros.

	Ingo

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Stefan Richter]

Chris Newport wrote:
> There is a fundamental problem in getting  a decent log to debug  a
> crashed kernel.

If the test machine and a 2nd machine have FireWire ports, it's possible
to get the kernel log and more via FireWire, unless the machine rebooted
immediately or the PCI bus locked up.  The program 'firescope' and the
raw1394 driver is needed on the 2nd machine; the test machine has to
have ohci1394 loaded.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-===-=-== -=-= =--http://arcgraph.de/sr/

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Stefan Richter]

Chris Newport wrote:
> There is a fundamental problem in getting  a decent log to debug  a
> crashed kernel.

If the test machine and a 2nd machine have FireWire ports, it's possible
to get the kernel log and more via FireWire, unless the machine rebooted
immediately or the PCI bus locked up.  The program 'firescope' and the
raw1394 driver is needed on the 2nd machine; the test machine has to
have ohci1394 loaded.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= ==--=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Stefan Richter]

Chris Newport wrote:
> There is a fundamental problem in getting  a decent log to debug  a
> crashed kernel.

If the test machine and a 2nd machine have FireWire ports, it's possible
to get the kernel log and more via FireWire, unless the machine rebooted
immediately or the PCI bus locked up.  The program 'firescope' and the
raw1394 driver is needed on the 2nd machine; the test machine has to
have ohci1394 loaded.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= ==--=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Chris Newport wrote:
>
> Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris.

No. Solaris is shit. They make their decisions based on "we control the 
hardware" kind of setup.

> If the kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag.
> At the next boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where
> it is preserved for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be
> larger than core, but this is usually the case.

(a) it's not necessarily the case at all on many systems

(b) _most_ crashes that are real BUG()'s (rather than WARN_ON()'s) leave 
    the system in such a fragile state that trying to write to disk is the 
    _last_ thing you should do.

    Linux does the right thing: it tries to not make bugs fatal. 
    Generally, you should see an oops, and things continue. Or a 
    WARN_ON(), and things continue. But you should avoid the "the machine 
    is now dead" cases.

(c) have you looked at the size of drivers lately? I'd argue that *most* 
    bugs by far happen in something driver-related, and most of our source 
    code is likely drivers.

    Writing to disk when the biggest problem is a driver to begin with 
    is INSANE.

So the fact is, Solaris is crap, and to a large degree Solaris is crap 
exactly _because_ it assumes that it runs in a "controlled environment".

Yes, in a controlled environment, dumping the whole memory image to disk 
may be the right thing to do. BUT: in a controlled environment, you'll 
never get the kind of usage that Linux gets. Why do you think Linux (and 
Windows, for that matter) took away a lot of the market from traditional 
UNIX? 

Answer: the traditional UNIX hardware/control model doesn't _work_. People 
want more flexibility, both on a hardware side and on a usage side. And 
once you have the flexibility, the "dump everything to disk" is simply not 
an option any more.

Disk dumps etc are options at things like wall street. But look at the bug 
reports, and ask yourself how many of them happen at Wall Street, and how 
many of them would even be _relevant_ to somebody there? 

So forget about it. The whole model is totally broken. We need to make 
bug-reports short and sweet, enough so that random people can 
copy-and-paste them into an email or take a digital photo. Anything else 
IS TOTALLY INSANE AND USELESS!

			Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Chris Newport wrote:
>
> Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris.

No. Solaris is shit. They make their decisions based on "we control the 
hardware" kind of setup.

> If the kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag.
> At the next boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where
> it is preserved for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be
> larger than core, but this is usually the case.

(a) it's not necessarily the case at all on many systems

(b) _most_ crashes that are real BUG()'s (rather than WARN_ON()'s) leave 
    the system in such a fragile state that trying to write to disk is the 
    _last_ thing you should do.

    Linux does the right thing: it tries to not make bugs fatal. 
    Generally, you should see an oops, and things continue. Or a 
    WARN_ON(), and things continue. But you should avoid the "the machine 
    is now dead" cases.

(c) have you looked at the size of drivers lately? I'd argue that *most* 
    bugs by far happen in something driver-related, and most of our source 
    code is likely drivers.

    Writing to disk when the biggest problem is a driver to begin with 
    is INSANE.

So the fact is, Solaris is crap, and to a large degree Solaris is crap 
exactly _because_ it assumes that it runs in a "controlled environment".

Yes, in a controlled environment, dumping the whole memory image to disk 
may be the right thing to do. BUT: in a controlled environment, you'll 
never get the kind of usage that Linux gets. Why do you think Linux (and 
Windows, for that matter) took away a lot of the market from traditional 
UNIX? 

Answer: the traditional UNIX hardware/control model doesn't _work_. People 
want more flexibility, both on a hardware side and on a usage side. And 
once you have the flexibility, the "dump everything to disk" is simply not 
an option any more.

Disk dumps etc are options at things like wall street. But look at the bug 
reports, and ask yourself how many of them happen at Wall Street, and how 
many of them would even be _relevant_ to somebody there? 

So forget about it. The whole model is totally broken. We need to make 
bug-reports short and sweet, enough so that random people can 
copy-and-paste them into an email or take a digital photo. Anything else 
IS TOTALLY INSANE AND USELESS!

			Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Chris Newport wrote:
>
> Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris.

No. Solaris is shit. They make their decisions based on "we control the 
hardware" kind of setup.

> If the kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag.
> At the next boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where
> it is preserved for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be
> larger than core, but this is usually the case.

(a) it's not necessarily the case at all on many systems

(b) _most_ crashes that are real BUG()'s (rather than WARN_ON()'s) leave 
    the system in such a fragile state that trying to write to disk is the 
    _last_ thing you should do.

    Linux does the right thing: it tries to not make bugs fatal. 
    Generally, you should see an oops, and things continue. Or a 
    WARN_ON(), and things continue. But you should avoid the "the machine 
    is now dead" cases.

(c) have you looked at the size of drivers lately? I'd argue that *most* 
    bugs by far happen in something driver-related, and most of our source 
    code is likely drivers.

    Writing to disk when the biggest problem is a driver to begin with 
    is INSANE.

So the fact is, Solaris is crap, and to a large degree Solaris is crap 
exactly _because_ it assumes that it runs in a "controlled environment".

Yes, in a controlled environment, dumping the whole memory image to disk 
may be the right thing to do. BUT: in a controlled environment, you'll 
never get the kind of usage that Linux gets. Why do you think Linux (and 
Windows, for that matter) took away a lot of the market from traditional 
UNIX? 

Answer: the traditional UNIX hardware/control model doesn't _work_. People 
want more flexibility, both on a hardware side and on a usage side. And 
once you have the flexibility, the "dump everything to disk" is simply not 
an option any more.

Disk dumps etc are options at things like wall street. But look at the bug 
reports, and ask yourself how many of them happen at Wall Street, and how 
many of them would even be _relevant_ to somebody there? 

So forget about it. The whole model is totally broken. We need to make 
bug-reports short and sweet, enough so that random people can 
copy-and-paste them into an email or take a digital photo. Anything else 
IS TOTALLY INSANE AND USELESS!

			Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Alan Cox]

> Disk dumps etc are options at things like wall street. But look at the bug 
> reports, and ask yourself how many of them happen at Wall Street, and how 
> many of them would even be _relevant_ to somebody there? 

There is an additional factor - dumps contain data which variously is -
copyright third parties, protected by privacy laws, just personally
private, security sensitive (eg browser history) and so on.

The only reasons you can get dumps back in the hands of vendors is
because there are strong formal agreements controlling where they go and
what is done with them.

Diskdump (and even more so netdump) are useful in the hands of a
developer crashing their own box just like kgdb, but not in the the
normal and rational end user response of  "its broken, hit reset"

Alan

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Alan Cox]

> Disk dumps etc are options at things like wall street. But look at the bug 
> reports, and ask yourself how many of them happen at Wall Street, and how 
> many of them would even be _relevant_ to somebody there? 

There is an additional factor - dumps contain data which variously is -
copyright third parties, protected by privacy laws, just personally
private, security sensitive (eg browser history) and so on.

The only reasons you can get dumps back in the hands of vendors is
because there are strong formal agreements controlling where they go and
what is done with them.

Diskdump (and even more so netdump) are useful in the hands of a
developer crashing their own box just like kgdb, but not in the the
normal and rational end user response of  "its broken, hit reset"

Alan

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Alan Cox]

> Disk dumps etc are options at things like wall street. But look at the bug 
> reports, and ask yourself how many of them happen at Wall Street, and how 
> many of them would even be _relevant_ to somebody there? 

There is an additional factor - dumps contain data which variously is -
copyright third parties, protected by privacy laws, just personally
private, security sensitive (eg browser history) and so on.

The only reasons you can get dumps back in the hands of vendors is
because there are strong formal agreements controlling where they go and
what is done with them.

Diskdump (and even more so netdump) are useful in the hands of a
developer crashing their own box just like kgdb, but not in the the
normal and rational end user response of  "its broken, hit reset"

Alan

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> There is an additional factor - dumps contain data which variously is -
> copyright third parties, protected by privacy laws, just personally
> private, security sensitive (eg browser history) and so on.

Yes. 

I'm sure we've had one or two crashdumps over the years that have actually 
clarified a bug.

But I seriously doubt it is more than a handful. 

> Diskdump (and even more so netdump) are useful in the hands of a
> developer crashing their own box just like kgdb, but not in the the
> normal and rational end user response of  "its broken, hit reset"

Amen, brother.

Even for developers, I suspect a _lot_ of people end up doing "ok, let's 
bisect this" or some other method to narrow it down to a specific case, 
and then staring at the source code once they get to that point.

At least I hope so. Even in user space, you should generally use gdb to 
get a traceback and perhaps variable information, and then go look at the 
source code.

Yes, dumps can (in theory) be useful for one-off issues, but I doubt many 
people have ever been able to get anything much more out of them than from 
a kernel "oops" message. 

For developers, I can heartily recommend the firewire-based remote debug 
facilities that the PowerPC people use. I've used it once or twice, and it 
is fairly simple and much better than a full dump (adn it works even when 
the CPU is totally locked up, which is the best reason for using it).

But 99% of the time, the problem doesn't happen on a developer machine, 
and even if it does, 90% of the time you really just want the traceback 
and register info that you get out of an oops.

			Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> There is an additional factor - dumps contain data which variously is -
> copyright third parties, protected by privacy laws, just personally
> private, security sensitive (eg browser history) and so on.

Yes. 

I'm sure we've had one or two crashdumps over the years that have actually 
clarified a bug.

But I seriously doubt it is more than a handful. 

> Diskdump (and even more so netdump) are useful in the hands of a
> developer crashing their own box just like kgdb, but not in the the
> normal and rational end user response of  "its broken, hit reset"

Amen, brother.

Even for developers, I suspect a _lot_ of people end up doing "ok, let's 
bisect this" or some other method to narrow it down to a specific case, 
and then staring at the source code once they get to that point.

At least I hope so. Even in user space, you should generally use gdb to 
get a traceback and perhaps variable information, and then go look at the 
source code.

Yes, dumps can (in theory) be useful for one-off issues, but I doubt many 
people have ever been able to get anything much more out of them than from 
a kernel "oops" message. 

For developers, I can heartily recommend the firewire-based remote debug 
facilities that the PowerPC people use. I've used it once or twice, and it 
is fairly simple and much better than a full dump (adn it works even when 
the CPU is totally locked up, which is the best reason for using it).

But 99% of the time, the problem doesn't happen on a developer machine, 
and even if it does, 90% of the time you really just want the traceback 
and register info that you get out of an oops.

			Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> There is an additional factor - dumps contain data which variously is -
> copyright third parties, protected by privacy laws, just personally
> private, security sensitive (eg browser history) and so on.

Yes. 

I'm sure we've had one or two crashdumps over the years that have actually 
clarified a bug.

But I seriously doubt it is more than a handful. 

> Diskdump (and even more so netdump) are useful in the hands of a
> developer crashing their own box just like kgdb, but not in the the
> normal and rational end user response of  "its broken, hit reset"

Amen, brother.

Even for developers, I suspect a _lot_ of people end up doing "ok, let's 
bisect this" or some other method to narrow it down to a specific case, 
and then staring at the source code once they get to that point.

At least I hope so. Even in user space, you should generally use gdb to 
get a traceback and perhaps variable information, and then go look at the 
source code.

Yes, dumps can (in theory) be useful for one-off issues, but I doubt many 
people have ever been able to get anything much more out of them than from 
a kernel "oops" message. 

For developers, I can heartily recommend the firewire-based remote debug 
facilities that the PowerPC people use. I've used it once or twice, and it 
is fairly simple and much better than a full dump (adn it works even when 
the CPU is totally locked up, which is the best reason for using it).

But 99% of the time, the problem doesn't happen on a developer machine, 
and even if it does, 90% of the time you really just want the traceback 
and register info that you get out of an oops.

			Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:19:52 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 
> > There is an additional factor - dumps contain data which variously is -
> > copyright third parties, protected by privacy laws, just personally
> > private, security sensitive (eg browser history) and so on.
> 
> Yes. 

We're uninterested in pagecache and user memory and they should be omitted
from the image (making it enormously smaller too).

That leaves security keys and perhaps filenames, and these could probably
be addressed.

> I'm sure we've had one or two crashdumps over the years that have actually 
> clarified a bug.
> 
> But I seriously doubt it is more than a handful. 

We've had a few more than that, but all the ones I recall actually came
from the kdump developers who were hitting other bugs and who just happened
to know how to drive the thing.

> > Diskdump (and even more so netdump) are useful in the hands of a
> > developer crashing their own box just like kgdb, but not in the the
> > normal and rational end user response of  "its broken, hit reset"
> 
> Amen, brother.
> 
> Even for developers, I suspect a _lot_ of people end up doing "ok, let's 
> bisect this" or some other method to narrow it down to a specific case, 
> and then staring at the source code once they get to that point.
> 
> At least I hope so. Even in user space, you should generally use gdb to 
> get a traceback and perhaps variable information, and then go look at the 
> source code.
> 
> Yes, dumps can (in theory) be useful for one-off issues, but I doubt many 
> people have ever been able to get anything much more out of them than from 
> a kernel "oops" message. 
> 
> For developers, I can heartily recommend the firewire-based remote debug 
> facilities that the PowerPC people use. I've used it once or twice, and it 
> is fairly simple and much better than a full dump (adn it works even when 
> the CPU is totally locked up, which is the best reason for using it).
> 
> But 99% of the time, the problem doesn't happen on a developer machine, 
> and even if it does, 90% of the time you really just want the traceback 
> and register info that you get out of an oops.
> 

Often we don't even get that: "I was in X and it didn't hit the logs".

You can learn a hell of a lot by really carefully picking through kernel
memory with gdb.

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:19:52 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 
> > There is an additional factor - dumps contain data which variously is -
> > copyright third parties, protected by privacy laws, just personally
> > private, security sensitive (eg browser history) and so on.
> 
> Yes. 

We're uninterested in pagecache and user memory and they should be omitted
from the image (making it enormously smaller too).

That leaves security keys and perhaps filenames, and these could probably
be addressed.

> I'm sure we've had one or two crashdumps over the years that have actually 
> clarified a bug.
> 
> But I seriously doubt it is more than a handful. 

We've had a few more than that, but all the ones I recall actually came
from the kdump developers who were hitting other bugs and who just happened
to know how to drive the thing.

> > Diskdump (and even more so netdump) are useful in the hands of a
> > developer crashing their own box just like kgdb, but not in the the
> > normal and rational end user response of  "its broken, hit reset"
> 
> Amen, brother.
> 
> Even for developers, I suspect a _lot_ of people end up doing "ok, let's 
> bisect this" or some other method to narrow it down to a specific case, 
> and then staring at the source code once they get to that point.
> 
> At least I hope so. Even in user space, you should generally use gdb to 
> get a traceback and perhaps variable information, and then go look at the 
> source code.
> 
> Yes, dumps can (in theory) be useful for one-off issues, but I doubt many 
> people have ever been able to get anything much more out of them than from 
> a kernel "oops" message. 
> 
> For developers, I can heartily recommend the firewire-based remote debug 
> facilities that the PowerPC people use. I've used it once or twice, and it 
> is fairly simple and much better than a full dump (adn it works even when 
> the CPU is totally locked up, which is the best reason for using it).
> 
> But 99% of the time, the problem doesn't happen on a developer machine, 
> and even if it does, 90% of the time you really just want the traceback 
> and register info that you get out of an oops.
> 

Often we don't even get that: "I was in X and it didn't hit the logs".

You can learn a hell of a lot by really carefully picking through kernel
memory with gdb.

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:19:52 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 
> > There is an additional factor - dumps contain data which variously is -
> > copyright third parties, protected by privacy laws, just personally
> > private, security sensitive (eg browser history) and so on.
> 
> Yes. 

We're uninterested in pagecache and user memory and they should be omitted
from the image (making it enormously smaller too).

That leaves security keys and perhaps filenames, and these could probably
be addressed.

> I'm sure we've had one or two crashdumps over the years that have actually 
> clarified a bug.
> 
> But I seriously doubt it is more than a handful. 

We've had a few more than that, but all the ones I recall actually came
from the kdump developers who were hitting other bugs and who just happened
to know how to drive the thing.

> > Diskdump (and even more so netdump) are useful in the hands of a
> > developer crashing their own box just like kgdb, but not in the the
> > normal and rational end user response of  "its broken, hit reset"
> 
> Amen, brother.
> 
> Even for developers, I suspect a _lot_ of people end up doing "ok, let's 
> bisect this" or some other method to narrow it down to a specific case, 
> and then staring at the source code once they get to that point.
> 
> At least I hope so. Even in user space, you should generally use gdb to 
> get a traceback and perhaps variable information, and then go look at the 
> source code.
> 
> Yes, dumps can (in theory) be useful for one-off issues, but I doubt many 
> people have ever been able to get anything much more out of them than from 
> a kernel "oops" message. 
> 
> For developers, I can heartily recommend the firewire-based remote debug 
> facilities that the PowerPC people use. I've used it once or twice, and it 
> is fairly simple and much better than a full dump (adn it works even when 
> the CPU is totally locked up, which is the best reason for using it).
> 
> But 99% of the time, the problem doesn't happen on a developer machine, 
> and even if it does, 90% of the time you really just want the traceback 
> and register info that you get out of an oops.
> 

Often we don't even get that: "I was in X and it didn't hit the logs".

You can learn a hell of a lot by really carefully picking through kernel
memory with gdb.

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Alan Cox]

On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:37:14AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Often we don't even get that: "I was in X and it didn't hit the logs".

Thats mostly solved by fixing the Oops and framebuffer code to co-operate
and is a different problem

Alan

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Alan Cox]

On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:37:14AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Often we don't even get that: "I was in X and it didn't hit the logs".

Thats mostly solved by fixing the Oops and framebuffer code to co-operate
and is a different problem

Alan

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Alan Cox]

On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:37:14AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Often we don't even get that: "I was in X and it didn't hit the logs".

Thats mostly solved by fixing the Oops and framebuffer code to co-operate
and is a different problem

Alan

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > There is an additional factor - dumps contain data which variously is -
> > > copyright third parties, protected by privacy laws, just personally
> > > private, security sensitive (eg browser history) and so on.
> > 
> > Yes. 
> 
> We're uninterested in pagecache and user memory and they should be omitted
> from the image (making it enormously smaller too).

The people who would use crash-dumps (big sensitive firms) don't trust 
you.

And they'd be right not to trust you. You end up having a _lot_ of 
sensitive data even if you avoid user memory and page cache. The network 
buffers, the dentries, and just stale data that hasn't been overwritten.

So if you end up having secure data on that machine, you should *never* 
send a dump to somebody you don't trust. For the financial companies 
(which are practically the only ones that would use dumps) there can even 
be legal reasons why they cannot do that!

> That leaves security keys and perhaps filenames, and these could probably
> be addressed.

It leaves almost every single kernel allocation, and no, it cannot be 
addressed.

How are you going to clear out the network packets that you have in 
memory? They're just kmalloc'ed. 

> > I'm sure we've had one or two crashdumps over the years that have actually 
> > clarified a bug.
> > 
> > But I seriously doubt it is more than a handful. 
> 
> We've had a few more than that, but all the ones I recall actually came
> from the kdump developers who were hitting other bugs and who just happened
> to know how to drive the thing.

Right, I don't dispute that some _developers_ might use dumping. I dispute 
that any user would practically ever use it.

And even for developers, I suspect it's _so_ far down the list of things 
you do, that it's practically zero.

> > But 99% of the time, the problem doesn't happen on a developer machine, 
> > and even if it does, 90% of the time you really just want the traceback 
> > and register info that you get out of an oops.
> 
> Often we don't even get that: "I was in X and it didn't hit the logs".

Yes. 

> You can learn a hell of a lot by really carefully picking through kernel
> memory with gdb.

.. but you can learn equally much with other methods that do *not* involve 
the pain and suffering that is a kernel dump.

Setting up netconsole or the firewire tools is much easier. The firewire 
thing in particular is nice, because it doesn't actually rely on the 
target having to even know about it (other than enabling the "remote DMA 
access" thing once on bootup).

If you've ever picked through a kernel dump after-the-fact, I just bet you 
could have done equally well with firewire, and it would have had _zero_ 
impact on your kernel image. Now, contrast that with kdump, and ask 
yourself: which one do you think is worth concentrating effort on?

 - kdump: lots of code and maintenance effort, doesn't work if the CPU 
   locks up, requires a lot of learning to go through the dump.

 - firewire: zero code, no maintenance effort, works even if the CPU locks 
   up. Still does require the same learning to go through the end result.

Which one wins? I know which one I'll push.

		Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > There is an additional factor - dumps contain data which variously is -
> > > copyright third parties, protected by privacy laws, just personally
> > > private, security sensitive (eg browser history) and so on.
> > 
> > Yes. 
> 
> We're uninterested in pagecache and user memory and they should be omitted
> from the image (making it enormously smaller too).

The people who would use crash-dumps (big sensitive firms) don't trust 
you.

And they'd be right not to trust you. You end up having a _lot_ of 
sensitive data even if you avoid user memory and page cache. The network 
buffers, the dentries, and just stale data that hasn't been overwritten.

So if you end up having secure data on that machine, you should *never* 
send a dump to somebody you don't trust. For the financial companies 
(which are practically the only ones that would use dumps) there can even 
be legal reasons why they cannot do that!

> That leaves security keys and perhaps filenames, and these could probably
> be addressed.

It leaves almost every single kernel allocation, and no, it cannot be 
addressed.

How are you going to clear out the network packets that you have in 
memory? They're just kmalloc'ed. 

> > I'm sure we've had one or two crashdumps over the years that have actually 
> > clarified a bug.
> > 
> > But I seriously doubt it is more than a handful. 
> 
> We've had a few more than that, but all the ones I recall actually came
> from the kdump developers who were hitting other bugs and who just happened
> to know how to drive the thing.

Right, I don't dispute that some _developers_ might use dumping. I dispute 
that any user would practically ever use it.

And even for developers, I suspect it's _so_ far down the list of things 
you do, that it's practically zero.

> > But 99% of the time, the problem doesn't happen on a developer machine, 
> > and even if it does, 90% of the time you really just want the traceback 
> > and register info that you get out of an oops.
> 
> Often we don't even get that: "I was in X and it didn't hit the logs".

Yes. 

> You can learn a hell of a lot by really carefully picking through kernel
> memory with gdb.

.. but you can learn equally much with other methods that do *not* involve 
the pain and suffering that is a kernel dump.

Setting up netconsole or the firewire tools is much easier. The firewire 
thing in particular is nice, because it doesn't actually rely on the 
target having to even know about it (other than enabling the "remote DMA 
access" thing once on bootup).

If you've ever picked through a kernel dump after-the-fact, I just bet you 
could have done equally well with firewire, and it would have had _zero_ 
impact on your kernel image. Now, contrast that with kdump, and ask 
yourself: which one do you think is worth concentrating effort on?

 - kdump: lots of code and maintenance effort, doesn't work if the CPU 
   locks up, requires a lot of learning to go through the dump.

 - firewire: zero code, no maintenance effort, works even if the CPU locks 
   up. Still does require the same learning to go through the end result.

Which one wins? I know which one I'll push.

		Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > There is an additional factor - dumps contain data which variously is -
> > > copyright third parties, protected by privacy laws, just personally
> > > private, security sensitive (eg browser history) and so on.
> > 
> > Yes. 
> 
> We're uninterested in pagecache and user memory and they should be omitted
> from the image (making it enormously smaller too).

The people who would use crash-dumps (big sensitive firms) don't trust 
you.

And they'd be right not to trust you. You end up having a _lot_ of 
sensitive data even if you avoid user memory and page cache. The network 
buffers, the dentries, and just stale data that hasn't been overwritten.

So if you end up having secure data on that machine, you should *never* 
send a dump to somebody you don't trust. For the financial companies 
(which are practically the only ones that would use dumps) there can even 
be legal reasons why they cannot do that!

> That leaves security keys and perhaps filenames, and these could probably
> be addressed.

It leaves almost every single kernel allocation, and no, it cannot be 
addressed.

How are you going to clear out the network packets that you have in 
memory? They're just kmalloc'ed. 

> > I'm sure we've had one or two crashdumps over the years that have actually 
> > clarified a bug.
> > 
> > But I seriously doubt it is more than a handful. 
> 
> We've had a few more than that, but all the ones I recall actually came
> from the kdump developers who were hitting other bugs and who just happened
> to know how to drive the thing.

Right, I don't dispute that some _developers_ might use dumping. I dispute 
that any user would practically ever use it.

And even for developers, I suspect it's _so_ far down the list of things 
you do, that it's practically zero.

> > But 99% of the time, the problem doesn't happen on a developer machine, 
> > and even if it does, 90% of the time you really just want the traceback 
> > and register info that you get out of an oops.
> 
> Often we don't even get that: "I was in X and it didn't hit the logs".

Yes. 

> You can learn a hell of a lot by really carefully picking through kernel
> memory with gdb.

.. but you can learn equally much with other methods that do *not* involve 
the pain and suffering that is a kernel dump.

Setting up netconsole or the firewire tools is much easier. The firewire 
thing in particular is nice, because it doesn't actually rely on the 
target having to even know about it (other than enabling the "remote DMA 
access" thing once on bootup).

If you've ever picked through a kernel dump after-the-fact, I just bet you 
could have done equally well with firewire, and it would have had _zero_ 
impact on your kernel image. Now, contrast that with kdump, and ask 
yourself: which one do you think is worth concentrating effort on?

 - kdump: lots of code and maintenance effort, doesn't work if the CPU 
   locks up, requires a lot of learning to go through the dump.

 - firewire: zero code, no maintenance effort, works even if the CPU locks 
   up. Still does require the same learning to go through the end result.

Which one wins? I know which one I'll push.

		Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Vivek Goyal]

On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:50:38AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > > There is an additional factor - dumps contain data which variously is -
> > > > copyright third parties, protected by privacy laws, just personally
> > > > private, security sensitive (eg browser history) and so on.
> > > 
> > > Yes. 
> > 
> > We're uninterested in pagecache and user memory and they should be omitted
> > from the image (making it enormously smaller too).
> 
> The people who would use crash-dumps (big sensitive firms) don't trust 
> you.
> 
> And they'd be right not to trust you. You end up having a _lot_ of 
> sensitive data even if you avoid user memory and page cache. The network 
> buffers, the dentries, and just stale data that hasn't been overwritten.
> 
> So if you end up having secure data on that machine, you should *never* 
> send a dump to somebody you don't trust. For the financial companies 
> (which are practically the only ones that would use dumps) there can even 
> be legal reasons why they cannot do that!
> 
> > That leaves security keys and perhaps filenames, and these could probably
> > be addressed.
> 
> It leaves almost every single kernel allocation, and no, it cannot be 
> addressed.
> 
> How are you going to clear out the network packets that you have in 
> memory? They're just kmalloc'ed. 
> 
> > > I'm sure we've had one or two crashdumps over the years that have actually 
> > > clarified a bug.
> > > 
> > > But I seriously doubt it is more than a handful. 
> > 
> > We've had a few more than that, but all the ones I recall actually came
> > from the kdump developers who were hitting other bugs and who just happened
> > to know how to drive the thing.
> 
> Right, I don't dispute that some _developers_ might use dumping. I dispute 
> that any user would practically ever use it.
> 
> And even for developers, I suspect it's _so_ far down the list of things 
> you do, that it's practically zero.
> 
> > > But 99% of the time, the problem doesn't happen on a developer machine, 
> > > and even if it does, 90% of the time you really just want the traceback 
> > > and register info that you get out of an oops.
> > 
> > Often we don't even get that: "I was in X and it didn't hit the logs".
> 
> Yes. 
> 

Isn't it reason enough for customers to use it? How will a customer 
capture even an OOPS meesage? Lets say some web server crashed and OOPs 
message did not make it to logs. I am not expecting a customer to setup
a console for each and every machine in the network. In this scenario
customer will have no choice but to reset the machine without any
information about why did machine crash.

If one can keep kdump configured, upon a crash there are high chances
that customer will have some debug information to look at. I agree that
security of data can be a concern. In that case probably one can extract
a small dump report, like OOPs message, messages in the kernel buffers
just before crash etc. and report it to service folks. 

Without kdump, customer will most likely have no debug data except a
complain that system crashed and rebooted or it had to be reset by manual
intervention.

Thanks
Vivek

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Vivek Goyal]

On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:50:38AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > > There is an additional factor - dumps contain data which variously is -
> > > > copyright third parties, protected by privacy laws, just personally
> > > > private, security sensitive (eg browser history) and so on.
> > > 
> > > Yes. 
> > 
> > We're uninterested in pagecache and user memory and they should be omitted
> > from the image (making it enormously smaller too).
> 
> The people who would use crash-dumps (big sensitive firms) don't trust 
> you.
> 
> And they'd be right not to trust you. You end up having a _lot_ of 
> sensitive data even if you avoid user memory and page cache. The network 
> buffers, the dentries, and just stale data that hasn't been overwritten.
> 
> So if you end up having secure data on that machine, you should *never* 
> send a dump to somebody you don't trust. For the financial companies 
> (which are practically the only ones that would use dumps) there can even 
> be legal reasons why they cannot do that!
> 
> > That leaves security keys and perhaps filenames, and these could probably
> > be addressed.
> 
> It leaves almost every single kernel allocation, and no, it cannot be 
> addressed.
> 
> How are you going to clear out the network packets that you have in 
> memory? They're just kmalloc'ed. 
> 
> > > I'm sure we've had one or two crashdumps over the years that have actually 
> > > clarified a bug.
> > > 
> > > But I seriously doubt it is more than a handful. 
> > 
> > We've had a few more than that, but all the ones I recall actually came
> > from the kdump developers who were hitting other bugs and who just happened
> > to know how to drive the thing.
> 
> Right, I don't dispute that some _developers_ might use dumping. I dispute 
> that any user would practically ever use it.
> 
> And even for developers, I suspect it's _so_ far down the list of things 
> you do, that it's practically zero.
> 
> > > But 99% of the time, the problem doesn't happen on a developer machine, 
> > > and even if it does, 90% of the time you really just want the traceback 
> > > and register info that you get out of an oops.
> > 
> > Often we don't even get that: "I was in X and it didn't hit the logs".
> 
> Yes. 
> 

Isn't it reason enough for customers to use it? How will a customer 
capture even an OOPS meesage? Lets say some web server crashed and OOPs 
message did not make it to logs. I am not expecting a customer to setup
a console for each and every machine in the network. In this scenario
customer will have no choice but to reset the machine without any
information about why did machine crash.

If one can keep kdump configured, upon a crash there are high chances
that customer will have some debug information to look at. I agree that
security of data can be a concern. In that case probably one can extract
a small dump report, like OOPs message, messages in the kernel buffers
just before crash etc. and report it to service folks. 

Without kdump, customer will most likely have no debug data except a
complain that system crashed and rebooted or it had to be reset by manual
intervention.

Thanks
Vivek

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Vivek Goyal]

On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:50:38AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > > There is an additional factor - dumps contain data which variously is -
> > > > copyright third parties, protected by privacy laws, just personally
> > > > private, security sensitive (eg browser history) and so on.
> > > 
> > > Yes. 
> > 
> > We're uninterested in pagecache and user memory and they should be omitted
> > from the image (making it enormously smaller too).
> 
> The people who would use crash-dumps (big sensitive firms) don't trust 
> you.
> 
> And they'd be right not to trust you. You end up having a _lot_ of 
> sensitive data even if you avoid user memory and page cache. The network 
> buffers, the dentries, and just stale data that hasn't been overwritten.
> 
> So if you end up having secure data on that machine, you should *never* 
> send a dump to somebody you don't trust. For the financial companies 
> (which are practically the only ones that would use dumps) there can even 
> be legal reasons why they cannot do that!
> 
> > That leaves security keys and perhaps filenames, and these could probably
> > be addressed.
> 
> It leaves almost every single kernel allocation, and no, it cannot be 
> addressed.
> 
> How are you going to clear out the network packets that you have in 
> memory? They're just kmalloc'ed. 
> 
> > > I'm sure we've had one or two crashdumps over the years that have actually 
> > > clarified a bug.
> > > 
> > > But I seriously doubt it is more than a handful. 
> > 
> > We've had a few more than that, but all the ones I recall actually came
> > from the kdump developers who were hitting other bugs and who just happened
> > to know how to drive the thing.
> 
> Right, I don't dispute that some _developers_ might use dumping. I dispute 
> that any user would practically ever use it.
> 
> And even for developers, I suspect it's _so_ far down the list of things 
> you do, that it's practically zero.
> 
> > > But 99% of the time, the problem doesn't happen on a developer machine, 
> > > and even if it does, 90% of the time you really just want the traceback 
> > > and register info that you get out of an oops.
> > 
> > Often we don't even get that: "I was in X and it didn't hit the logs".
> 
> Yes. 
> 

Isn't it reason enough for customers to use it? How will a customer 
capture even an OOPS meesage? Lets say some web server crashed and OOPs 
message did not make it to logs. I am not expecting a customer to setup
a console for each and every machine in the network. In this scenario
customer will have no choice but to reset the machine without any
information about why did machine crash.

If one can keep kdump configured, upon a crash there are high chances
that customer will have some debug information to look at. I agree that
security of data can be a concern. In that case probably one can extract
a small dump report, like OOPs message, messages in the kernel buffers
just before crash etc. and report it to service folks. 

Without kdump, customer will most likely have no debug data except a
complain that system crashed and rebooted or it had to be reset by manual
intervention.

Thanks
Vivek

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Chuck Ebbert]

On 05/25/2007 12:45 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yes, in a controlled environment, dumping the whole memory image to disk 
> may be the right thing to do. BUT: in a controlled environment, you'll 
> never get the kind of usage that Linux gets. Why do you think Linux (and 
> Windows, for that matter) took away a lot of the market from traditional 
> UNIX? 
> 

Windows can dump memory to the swap file on crash. Default is a "minidump"
IIRC but you can set it to dump all memory (or none.)

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Chuck Ebbert]

On 05/25/2007 12:45 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yes, in a controlled environment, dumping the whole memory image to disk 
> may be the right thing to do. BUT: in a controlled environment, you'll 
> never get the kind of usage that Linux gets. Why do you think Linux (and 
> Windows, for that matter) took away a lot of the market from traditional 
> UNIX? 
> 

Windows can dump memory to the swap file on crash. Default is a "minidump"
IIRC but you can set it to dump all memory (or none.)

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Chuck Ebbert]

On 05/25/2007 12:45 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yes, in a controlled environment, dumping the whole memory image to disk 
> may be the right thing to do. BUT: in a controlled environment, you'll 
> never get the kind of usage that Linux gets. Why do you think Linux (and 
> Windows, for that matter) took away a lot of the market from traditional 
> UNIX? 
> 

Windows can dump memory to the swap file on crash. Default is a "minidump"
IIRC but you can set it to dump all memory (or none.)

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> 
> Windows can dump memory to the swap file on crash. Default is a "minidump"
> IIRC but you can set it to dump all memory (or none.)

And Linux can too.

And exactly as with Windows, nobody should ever use it. It's a *developer* 
thing. It's not a user debug facility. And even developers are not all 
that likely to use it.

		Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> 
> Windows can dump memory to the swap file on crash. Default is a "minidump"
> IIRC but you can set it to dump all memory (or none.)

And Linux can too.

And exactly as with Windows, nobody should ever use it. It's a *developer* 
thing. It's not a user debug facility. And even developers are not all 
that likely to use it.

		Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> 
> Windows can dump memory to the swap file on crash. Default is a "minidump"
> IIRC but you can set it to dump all memory (or none.)

And Linux can too.

And exactly as with Windows, nobody should ever use it. It's a *developer* 
thing. It's not a user debug facility. And even developers are not all 
that likely to use it.

		Linus

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Chris Newport]

Sorry, I did not make myself clear.

Linus Torvalds wrote:

>On Fri, 25 May 2007, Chris Newport wrote:
>  
>
>>Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris.
>>    
>>
>
>No. Solaris is shit. They make their decisions based on "we control the 
>hardware" kind of setup.
>  
>
Not really a Solaris feature. This is a feature of the  Openboot  PROM
which is also used by several other vendors.
The Openboot PROM knows how to write to disk. The same should
apply on Apple hardware and others which use the openboot
convention.

If dumps are enabled (disabled by default in a file read at boot) the
crash() function need only  set a couple of registers and do a prom
interrupt. At this point the kernel is no longer involved so broken
drivers etc are not an issue.

The cute bit is that the SunOS debug program can be called as
debug $DUMPFILE and it takes you to the failure point just like
a tracefile.

Crashdumps should not be enabled by default, they can chew rather
a lot of disk space making a crashdump.datetime file every time
something breaks <B-).
In most cases only developers will use this but it does resolve the
problem of error messages vanishing before they can be saved.


>  
>
>>If the kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag.
>>At the next boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where
>>it is preserved for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be
>>larger than core, but this is usually the case.
>>    
>>
>
>(a) it's not necessarily the case at all on many systems
>
>(b) _most_ crashes that are real BUG()'s (rather than WARN_ON()'s) leave 
>    the system in such a fragile state that trying to write to disk is the 
>    _last_ thing you should do.
>
>    Linux does the right thing: it tries to not make bugs fatal. 
>    Generally, you should see an oops, and things continue. Or a 
>    WARN_ON(), and things continue. But you should avoid the "the machine 
>    is now dead" cases.
>
>(c) have you looked at the size of drivers lately? I'd argue that *most* 
>    bugs by far happen in something driver-related, and most of our source 
>    code is likely drivers.
>
>    Writing to disk when the biggest problem is a driver to begin with 
>    is INSANE.
>
>So the fact is, Solaris is crap, and to a large degree Solaris is crap 
>exactly _because_ it assumes that it runs in a "controlled environment".
>
>Yes, in a controlled environment, dumping the whole memory image to disk 
>may be the right thing to do. BUT: in a controlled environment, you'll 
>never get the kind of usage that Linux gets. Why do you think Linux (and 
>Windows, for that matter) took away a lot of the market from traditional 
>UNIX? 
>
>Answer: the traditional UNIX hardware/control model doesn't _work_. People 
>want more flexibility, both on a hardware side and on a usage side. And 
>once you have the flexibility, the "dump everything to disk" is simply not 
>an option any more.
>
>Disk dumps etc are options at things like wall street. But look at the bug 
>reports, and ask yourself how many of them happen at Wall Street, and how 
>many of them would even be _relevant_ to somebody there? 
>
>So forget about it. The whole model is totally broken. We need to make 
>bug-reports short and sweet, enough so that random people can 
>copy-and-paste them into an email or take a digital photo. Anything else 
>IS TOTALLY INSANE AND USELESS!
>
>			Linus
>  
>

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Chris Newport]

Sorry, I did not make myself clear.

Linus Torvalds wrote:

>On Fri, 25 May 2007, Chris Newport wrote:
>  
>
>>Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris.
>>    
>>
>
>No. Solaris is shit. They make their decisions based on "we control the 
>hardware" kind of setup.
>  
>
Not really a Solaris feature. This is a feature of the  Openboot  PROM
which is also used by several other vendors.
The Openboot PROM knows how to write to disk. The same should
apply on Apple hardware and others which use the openboot
convention.

If dumps are enabled (disabled by default in a file read at boot) the
crash() function need only  set a couple of registers and do a prom
interrupt. At this point the kernel is no longer involved so broken
drivers etc are not an issue.

The cute bit is that the SunOS debug program can be called as
debug $DUMPFILE and it takes you to the failure point just like
a tracefile.

Crashdumps should not be enabled by default, they can chew rather
a lot of disk space making a crashdump.datetime file every time
something breaks <B-).
In most cases only developers will use this but it does resolve the
problem of error messages vanishing before they can be saved.


>  
>
>>If the kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag.
>>At the next boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where
>>it is preserved for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be
>>larger than core, but this is usually the case.
>>    
>>
>
>(a) it's not necessarily the case at all on many systems
>
>(b) _most_ crashes that are real BUG()'s (rather than WARN_ON()'s) leave 
>    the system in such a fragile state that trying to write to disk is the 
>    _last_ thing you should do.
>
>    Linux does the right thing: it tries to not make bugs fatal. 
>    Generally, you should see an oops, and things continue. Or a 
>    WARN_ON(), and things continue. But you should avoid the "the machine 
>    is now dead" cases.
>
>(c) have you looked at the size of drivers lately? I'd argue that *most* 
>    bugs by far happen in something driver-related, and most of our source 
>    code is likely drivers.
>
>    Writing to disk when the biggest problem is a driver to begin with 
>    is INSANE.
>
>So the fact is, Solaris is crap, and to a large degree Solaris is crap 
>exactly _because_ it assumes that it runs in a "controlled environment".
>
>Yes, in a controlled environment, dumping the whole memory image to disk 
>may be the right thing to do. BUT: in a controlled environment, you'll 
>never get the kind of usage that Linux gets. Why do you think Linux (and 
>Windows, for that matter) took away a lot of the market from traditional 
>UNIX? 
>
>Answer: the traditional UNIX hardware/control model doesn't _work_. People 
>want more flexibility, both on a hardware side and on a usage side. And 
>once you have the flexibility, the "dump everything to disk" is simply not 
>an option any more.
>
>Disk dumps etc are options at things like wall street. But look at the bug 
>reports, and ask yourself how many of them happen at Wall Street, and how 
>many of them would even be _relevant_ to somebody there? 
>
>So forget about it. The whole model is totally broken. We need to make 
>bug-reports short and sweet, enough so that random people can 
>copy-and-paste them into an email or take a digital photo. Anything else 
>IS TOTALLY INSANE AND USELESS!
>
>			Linus
>  
>

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Chris Newport]

Sorry, I did not make myself clear.

Linus Torvalds wrote:

>On Fri, 25 May 2007, Chris Newport wrote:
>  
>
>>Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris.
>>    
>>
>
>No. Solaris is shit. They make their decisions based on "we control the 
>hardware" kind of setup.
>  
>
Not really a Solaris feature. This is a feature of the  Openboot  PROM
which is also used by several other vendors.
The Openboot PROM knows how to write to disk. The same should
apply on Apple hardware and others which use the openboot
convention.

If dumps are enabled (disabled by default in a file read at boot) the
crash() function need only  set a couple of registers and do a prom
interrupt. At this point the kernel is no longer involved so broken
drivers etc are not an issue.

The cute bit is that the SunOS debug program can be called as
debug $DUMPFILE and it takes you to the failure point just like
a tracefile.

Crashdumps should not be enabled by default, they can chew rather
a lot of disk space making a crashdump.datetime file every time
something breaks <B-).
In most cases only developers will use this but it does resolve the
problem of error messages vanishing before they can be saved.


>  
>
>>If the kernel crashes Solaris dumps core to swap and sets a flag.
>>At the next boot this image is copied to /var/adm/crashdump where
>>it is preserved for future debugging. Obviously swap needs to be
>>larger than core, but this is usually the case.
>>    
>>
>
>(a) it's not necessarily the case at all on many systems
>
>(b) _most_ crashes that are real BUG()'s (rather than WARN_ON()'s) leave 
>    the system in such a fragile state that trying to write to disk is the 
>    _last_ thing you should do.
>
>    Linux does the right thing: it tries to not make bugs fatal. 
>    Generally, you should see an oops, and things continue. Or a 
>    WARN_ON(), and things continue. But you should avoid the "the machine 
>    is now dead" cases.
>
>(c) have you looked at the size of drivers lately? I'd argue that *most* 
>    bugs by far happen in something driver-related, and most of our source 
>    code is likely drivers.
>
>    Writing to disk when the biggest problem is a driver to begin with 
>    is INSANE.
>
>So the fact is, Solaris is crap, and to a large degree Solaris is crap 
>exactly _because_ it assumes that it runs in a "controlled environment".
>
>Yes, in a controlled environment, dumping the whole memory image to disk 
>may be the right thing to do. BUT: in a controlled environment, you'll 
>never get the kind of usage that Linux gets. Why do you think Linux (and 
>Windows, for that matter) took away a lot of the market from traditional 
>UNIX? 
>
>Answer: the traditional UNIX hardware/control model doesn't _work_. People 
>want more flexibility, both on a hardware side and on a usage side. And 
>once you have the flexibility, the "dump everything to disk" is simply not 
>an option any more.
>
>Disk dumps etc are options at things like wall street. But look at the bug 
>reports, and ask yourself how many of them happen at Wall Street, and how 
>many of them would even be _relevant_ to somebody there? 
>
>So forget about it. The whole model is totally broken. We need to make 
>bug-reports short and sweet, enough so that random people can 
>copy-and-paste them into an email or take a digital photo. Anything else 
>IS TOTALLY INSANE AND USELESS!
>
>			Linus
>  
>

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[David Miller]

From: Chris Newport <crn@netunix.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 19:03:51 +0100

> Not really a Solaris feature. This is a feature of the  Openboot  PROM
> which is also used by several other vendors.
> The Openboot PROM knows how to write to disk. The same should
> apply on Apple hardware and others which use the openboot
> convention.

This is totally unusable even if it weren't stupid, and as
someone who loves OpenBoot I think it's very stupid.

The reason it's unusable is that PowerPC already and sparc64 soon (in
order to support LDOMs) totally drops the OBP firmware very soon after
early kernel boot.  We pull in the device tree and then say "see ya"
to openboot.

PowerPC does it because sharing the address space with openboot is
next to impossible on that cpu, sparc64 will need to do it because
dynamic-reconfiguration of cpus in an LDOM is too hard to do with
openboot there.

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[David Miller]

From: Chris Newport <crn@netunix.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 19:03:51 +0100

> Not really a Solaris feature. This is a feature of the  Openboot  PROM
> which is also used by several other vendors.
> The Openboot PROM knows how to write to disk. The same should
> apply on Apple hardware and others which use the openboot
> convention.

This is totally unusable even if it weren't stupid, and as
someone who loves OpenBoot I think it's very stupid.

The reason it's unusable is that PowerPC already and sparc64 soon (in
order to support LDOMs) totally drops the OBP firmware very soon after
early kernel boot.  We pull in the device tree and then say "see ya"
to openboot.

PowerPC does it because sharing the address space with openboot is
next to impossible on that cpu, sparc64 will need to do it because
dynamic-reconfiguration of cpus in an LDOM is too hard to do with
openboot there.

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[David Miller]

From: Chris Newport <crn@netunix.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 19:03:51 +0100

> Not really a Solaris feature. This is a feature of the  Openboot  PROM
> which is also used by several other vendors.
> The Openboot PROM knows how to write to disk. The same should
> apply on Apple hardware and others which use the openboot
> convention.

This is totally unusable even if it weren't stupid, and as
someone who loves OpenBoot I think it's very stupid.

The reason it's unusable is that PowerPC already and sparc64 soon (in
order to support LDOMs) totally drops the OBP firmware very soon after
early kernel boot.  We pull in the device tree and then say "see ya"
to openboot.

PowerPC does it because sharing the address space with openboot is
next to impossible on that cpu, sparc64 will need to do it because
dynamic-reconfiguration of cpus in an LDOM is too hard to do with
openboot there.

Re: Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Matt Sealey]

Chris Newport wrote:
> 
> Sorry, I did not make myself clear.
> 
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Chris Newport wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris.
>>>   
>>
>> No. Solaris is shit. They make their decisions based on "we control
>> the hardware" kind of setup.
>>  
>>
> Not really a Solaris feature. This is a feature of the  Openboot  PROM
> which is also used by several other vendors.
> The Openboot PROM knows how to write to disk. The same should
> apply on Apple hardware and others which use the openboot
> convention.

It doesn't, though. It is not part of any specification of Open Firmware
that you MUST be able to write to any exposed disk. In fact, I know of
one firmware implementation (ours) where we don't allow it. Apart from
being a bitch to implement safely (i.e. for people's data) it is also
quite a security problem to allow the firmware interface to write to
the disk. You can't make the differentiation between "at the firmware
console" and "inside a booted OS" unfortunately.

The 'solution' in Solaris is actually that the filesystem and disk
write handling is done by the OS bootloader and not the PROM. All
the PROM knows how to do is read off the bootloader (in a special
partition in a special filesystem format) and execute it after
probing the hardware and providing the device tree. The first stage
boot loader then knows how to read UFS filesystems so it can grab
the kernel and load kernel modules, and write back a kernel dump
if it needs to.

That, and Linux drops OF support like a lead weight very early in boot.
About all you can rely on is the device tree listing all your disks
present, and even then, Linux will redetect all of these with native
drivers and give them new names anyway. In fact, Solaris does the
same (but it is better about associating the device tree entries
than Linux)

-- 
Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com>
Genesi, Manager, Developer Relations

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Matt Sealey]

Chris Newport wrote:
> 
> Sorry, I did not make myself clear.
> 
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Chris Newport wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris.
>>>   
>>
>> No. Solaris is shit. They make their decisions based on "we control
>> the hardware" kind of setup.
>>  
>>
> Not really a Solaris feature. This is a feature of the  Openboot  PROM
> which is also used by several other vendors.
> The Openboot PROM knows how to write to disk. The same should
> apply on Apple hardware and others which use the openboot
> convention.

It doesn't, though. It is not part of any specification of Open Firmware
that you MUST be able to write to any exposed disk. In fact, I know of
one firmware implementation (ours) where we don't allow it. Apart from
being a bitch to implement safely (i.e. for people's data) it is also
quite a security problem to allow the firmware interface to write to
the disk. You can't make the differentiation between "at the firmware
console" and "inside a booted OS" unfortunately.

The 'solution' in Solaris is actually that the filesystem and disk
write handling is done by the OS bootloader and not the PROM. All
the PROM knows how to do is read off the bootloader (in a special
partition in a special filesystem format) and execute it after
probing the hardware and providing the device tree. The first stage
boot loader then knows how to read UFS filesystems so it can grab
the kernel and load kernel modules, and write back a kernel dump
if it needs to.

That, and Linux drops OF support like a lead weight very early in boot.
About all you can rely on is the device tree listing all your disks
present, and even then, Linux will redetect all of these with native
drivers and give them new names anyway. In fact, Solaris does the
same (but it is better about associating the device tree entries
than Linux)

-- 
Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com>
Genesi, Manager, Developer Relations

Re: [linux-pm] Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Matt Sealey]

Chris Newport wrote:
> 
> Sorry, I did not make myself clear.
> 
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Chris Newport wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Maybe we should take a hint from Solaris.
>>>   
>>
>> No. Solaris is shit. They make their decisions based on "we control
>> the hardware" kind of setup.
>>  
>>
> Not really a Solaris feature. This is a feature of the  Openboot  PROM
> which is also used by several other vendors.
> The Openboot PROM knows how to write to disk. The same should
> apply on Apple hardware and others which use the openboot
> convention.

It doesn't, though. It is not part of any specification of Open Firmware
that you MUST be able to write to any exposed disk. In fact, I know of
one firmware implementation (ours) where we don't allow it. Apart from
being a bitch to implement safely (i.e. for people's data) it is also
quite a security problem to allow the firmware interface to write to
the disk. You can't make the differentiation between "at the firmware
console" and "inside a booted OS" unfortunately.

The 'solution' in Solaris is actually that the filesystem and disk
write handling is done by the OS bootloader and not the PROM. All
the PROM knows how to do is read off the bootloader (in a special
partition in a special filesystem format) and execute it after
probing the hardware and providing the device tree. The first stage
boot loader then knows how to read UFS filesystems so it can grab
the kernel and load kernel modules, and write back a kernel dump
if it needs to.

That, and Linux drops OF support like a lead weight very early in boot.
About all you can rely on is the device tree listing all your disks
present, and even then, Linux will redetect all of these with native
drivers and give them new names anyway. In fact, Solaris does the
same (but it is better about associating the device tree entries
than Linux)

-- 
Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com>
Genesi, Manager, Developer Relations

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Ingo Molnar]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > i very much agree that this kmalloc_index() one shouldnt be called a 
> > "BUG: ", but if you look at the majority of WARN_ON() instances they 
> > are checks for clear, serious kernel bugs.
> 
> I _still_ disagree.
> 
> There's a huge difference between "You killed my father, prepare to 
> die", and "Btw, I didn't like that, but I'll just continue".

yeah ...

> And that's the difference between BUG_ON() and WARN_ON().

how about this solution: make WARN_ON() a "WARNING: " like you suggested 
(i still agree with that in principle), but also solve the additional 
problem i'm trying to outline: make BUG_ON() _not_ crash the box [only 
if the user asks for a crash to happen in such circumstances - this can 
be a sysctl.]. Then i can change the majority of the current WARN_ON()s 
to BUG_ON()s.

Most of the WARN_ON()s i personally add (and most of the WARN_ON()s i 
see others adding) are not WARN_ON()s because "i didnt like that and 
i'll just continue", they are WARN_ON() because i want _actual feedback 
from users_.

A BUG_ON() has a (much) lower likelyhood of being reported back - for 
most users it is a "X just hung hard, there was nothing in the syslog, i 
had to switch back to the older kernel" experience, and they do not have 
a serial console to hook up (newer hardware often doesnt even have a 
serial port). With the WARN_ON()s we have a _chance_ that despite the 
seriousness of the bug, the message makes it to the syslog, until the 
system comes to a screeching halt due to side-effects of the bug.

in that sense i am part of the problem: i was adding WARN_ON()s that 
werent true 'warnings' but 'bugs'. So i'd very much like to fix that 
problem, but i'd also like to solve the (very serious and existing) 
problem of BUG_ON()s making it less likely to get bugs reported back. 

	Ingo

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Ingo Molnar]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > Looks like this is in DRM code:
> > 
> > BUG: at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
> 
> I'm going to change that "BUG:" to "WARNING:".
> 
> I know some people disagreed with it (ie Ingo), but I think that's 
> total and utter bullshit.
> 
> It's a warning. Right now that "BUG:" message makes people all scared 
> about something that is not fatal at all, just a note that something 
> hasn't been converted, but is expected to work absolutely fine.
> 
> Calling it a bug is idiotic.

i very much agree that this kmalloc_index() one shouldnt be called a 
"BUG: ", but if you look at the majority of WARN_ON() instances they are 
checks for clear, serious kernel bugs. Very often we use WARN_ON() not 
to signal that it's just a harmless warning, but because we do not want 
to bring the system down via a BUG_ON(). The API is misnamed for sure, 
but still, the purpose and current practice is clear: to signal kernel 
bugs.

To quantify this a bit more objectively i just did a "grep WARN_ON 
kernel/*.c" and randomly picked 10 out of the 113 WARN_ON()'s:

 kernel/cpu.c:			WARN_ON(1);
 kernel/exit.c:	WARN_ON(atomic_read(&tsk->fs_excl));
 kernel/fork.c:	WARN_ON(!(tsk->exit_state & (EXIT_DEAD | EXIT_ZOMBIE)));
 kernel/futex.c:	WARN_ON(!pi_state);
 kernel/hrtimer.c:		WARN_ON_ONCE(timer->cb_mode ==  HRTIMER_CB_IRQSAFE_NO_SOFTIRQ);
 kernel/lockdep.c:		WARN_ON(1);
 kernel/mutex-debug.c:	DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(list_empty(&waiter->list));
 kernel/rtmutex.c:	WARN_ON(rt_mutex_is_locked(lock));
 kernel/sched.c:	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON((preempt_count() < 0)))
 kernel/softirq.c:       WARN_ON_ONCE(in_irq());

and reviewed each instance, each and every one of these warnings is a 
serious kernel bug that i would not 'warn' about, but what i'd like to 
see reported ASAP. [ In fact i added 5 of these WARN_ON()s :-/ ] But 
maybe that's just me?

now regarding the naming of this API, i'd very much agree to do this 
rename:

   WARN_ON  =>  BUG_ON
   BUG_ON   =>  CRASH_ON

and make WARN_ON() print a "WARNING: ".

and i signalled this in the original discussion too a few months ago 
when i opposed the watering-down of the WARN_ON printk.

OTOH i dont feel that strongly about all this :-)

	Ingo

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Christoph Lameter]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:

> Memory management
> 
> Subject    : kernel BUG at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
> References : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8476
> Submitter  : Cherwin R. Nooitmeer <cherwin@gmail.com>
> Status     : Unknown


Looks like this is in DRM code:

BUG: at include/linux/slub_def.h:88 kmalloc_index()
 [<c014f67f>] get_slab+0x43/0x1c6
 [<c014f875>] __kmalloc+0xc/0x57
 [<f0a7b564>] drm_rmdraw+0x0/0x27d [drm]
 [<f0a7b698>] drm_rmdraw+0x134/0x27d [drm]
 [<f0a7b564>] drm_rmdraw+0x0/0x27d [drm]
 [<f0a7c1d0>] drm_ioctl+0x144/0x18c [drm]
 [<c01265ad>] enqueue_hrtimer+0xe3/0xef
 [<c015c184>] do_ioctl+0x4c/0x64
 [<c015c3c7>] vfs_ioctl+0x22b/0x23e
 [<c015c40d>] sys_ioctl+0x33/0x4e
 [<c0103ca0>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb

Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Stefan Richter]

Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Subject    : 2.6.22-rc1 suspend to RAM problem
> References : http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/5819
> Submitter  : Marcus Better <marcus@better.se>
> Handled-By : Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
>              Kristian Høgsberg <krh@bitplanet.net>
> Status     : caused by fw-ohci module

Fixed in Linus' tree.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -==- ---==
http://arcgraph.de/sr/

Re: [3/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Michal Piotrowski]

Hi all,

Here is a list of some known regressions in 2.6.22-rc2.

Feel free to add new regressions/remove fixed etc.
http://kernelnewbies.org/known_regressions



USB

Subject    : usb hotplug/udev cannot correctly register usb/scanners
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/15/205
Submitter  : art@usfltd.com <art@usfltd.com>
Status     : Unknown



V4L

Subject    : V4L ABI breakage
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/14/42
Submitter  : Robert Fitzsimons <robfitz@273k.net>
Caused-By  : Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>
             Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>
             commit 206ebaf32795cf1582b1e2ff2ec6a560c9e986b8
Workaround : http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mchehab/v4l-dvb.git;a=commitdiff;h=15ac2d293b08b6975c6ca1a80eb839d4cb0dddbf
Status     : problem is being debugged



Regards,
Michal

--
"Najbardziej brakowało mi twojego milczenia."
-- Andrzej Sapkowski "Coś więcej"

Re: [3/3] 2.6.22-rc2: known regressions v2

[Greg KH]

On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 04:04:11PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Here is a list of some known regressions in 2.6.22-rc2.
> 
> Feel free to add new regressions/remove fixed etc.
> http://kernelnewbies.org/known_regressions
> 
> 
> 
> USB
> 
> Subject    : usb hotplug/udev cannot correctly register usb/scanners
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/15/205
> Submitter  : art@usfltd.com <art@usfltd.com>
> Status     : Unknown

I'm still working to track this down.  As scanners are in userspace, I
really suspect a bad udev rule here...

thanks,

greg k-h